Comments on: Eliot Spitzer — “Bring Some Passion Back To Albany”

By: RockPaperScizzors

RockPaperScizzors — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:33:35 +0000

AMEN. It’s about the Wall Street ~~pirates~~ investment bankers, monoline bond insurers, AMBAC bailout; AAA ratings, and separate bond insurers’ municipal businesses from their more troubled structured finance units, ie., remove the chaffe from the wheat.

Today, Fed chair Bernanke threw another life perserver, 200 billion, to the ~~pirate ships~~ insolvent banks. The collateral; laden with CDO’s, SIV’s CDS. From the fed’s hands to the banks to wall streets greedy hands. Watch commodities shoot thru the roof. We, the little people get to carry Bernanke’s generousity via dollar devaluation.

By: Hairhead

Hairhead — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:32:21 +0000

What IS it with you Americans and sex? So, two consenting adults had sex. No violence, no rape. And as for “treating his family this way” . . . that’s their business and no-one else’s, just as much an abortion is a woman’s business alone. Yeah, he’s got a problem with hypocrisy, prosecuting a prostitution ring when he uses prostitutes himself — but what’s that hypocrisy compared to, say, taking campaign money from a chemical factory dumping carcinogens into the water table. Get a grip. There are minor sins and major sins, small crimes and big crimes. And everyone knows that the Wall Street scumbags that Spitzer is going after have committed far greater crimes that his minor bit of canoodling. So he should leave, and BIG criminals stay fat and cosy and comfortable? Can you say, “baby with the bathwater”, or “self-defeating strategy?” (Please note that Senator Vitter, despite using prostitutes, wearing diapers, and participating in feces-play, did not resign.) Grow up!

By: anonosassin

anonosassin — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 02:11:36 +0000

In response to PJEvans, Comment #208.

My friend, if anyone is projecting, it must be you. I never had a wife, and am grateful for it. And if you scan the comments, you’ll see plenty of examples of gratuitous trashing of men based only on their seeking of sex outside of their marriages. So I just thought I would provide a touch of the counter-argument. There usually is a counter-argument to be made, you know, and the self-righteousness of women, who commit infidelity at a rate only slightly lower than men, can get a bit tiresome when it is a too-steady component of the diet.

By: PJEvans

PJEvans — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:59:15 +0000

Projecting?
We weren’t talking about the wives (except for extending sympathy); we were talking about what got the feds involved, because the various versions of wha’hoppen aren’t adding up very well.

By: anonosassin

anonosassin — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:35:39 +0000

To all the female commenters here who can’t resist trashing men in general for not keeping it in their pants, would you ever consider that many of these men are not having their sexual needs met by their wives? This is a big topic of conversation recently among my male friends, that their wives don’t seem to care about the husband’s sexual needs and desires at all once children enter the picture. Most of these guys kill themselves at work so they can “provide for” all the needs of their wives and kids, but they say their wives have become totally selfish when it comes to “providing for” the mens’ sexual needs. The moral? Throw stones less, spread the legs more, make it easier for your men to remain faithful. For the record, most men I talk to are very clear that they would rather have sex with their wives than have a girl on the side, but when their wives freeze them out for months and sometimes years, they feel justified in going outside the marriage to get what they need. Then, of course, you have all those stay-at-home wives who feel justified in having a stud on the side because their husband is always away at work (providing for her needs).

Ladies, please take a long look in the mirror before you so gleefully trash the men. Y’all bear plenty of responsibility for the way things are between the sexes, now that we are 50 years into the feminist revolution.

By: anonosassin

anonosassin — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:24:06 +0000

I believe that money ransfers as low as $2,000 now trigger a bank report. Best way to know is to ask your local bank, but I was asked to provide additional info a couple of years ago over a $2,500 check, and that is what I was told by the bank teller. It’s all the wonderful new Patriot Act regulations, don’cha know? If you move even a small amount of money, say, to buy a used car, you become a possible criminal or terrorist suspect. Smell the freedom.

By: CowgirlintheSand

CowgirlintheSand — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:49:48 +0000

> These are serious times, the “times that try men’s souls.” You don’t fuck around, and I mean that, primarily, metaphorically.

No kidding! What is wrong with all these men? I am also wondering if the Washington Post will have an editorial this week called Men are Stupid?? >

By: ralphbon

ralphbon — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:30:49 +0000

Oops…uh…did I mention that my “best case” scenario involved time travel?

Thanks for correcting me.

By: kemo

kemo — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:14:25 +0000

cool.

Hey, not that I do any transfers myself that need scrutiny, mind you…

By: cbl2

cbl2 — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:10:07 +0000

kemo - muchas gracias for that link - perfect

page 2 explains ’structuring’ !

maybe be used wire transfers - which would of course been noticed